Jump to content

Talk:Voepass Flight 2283

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insistence on use of 'accident'

[edit]

If you search articles for "Brazil Plane" today not one headline on major RS use 'accident' yet a @Aviationwikiflight insists on injecting this loaded term on the article. We follow RS, and most major, reputable RS are using "crash". Accident is a loaded word and simply because an infobox guideline page suggests it does not mean we use it instead of more appropriate English such as crash, collision, incident, explosion, etc when useful. The AP Stylebook also warns against using accident in most cases. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AP Stylebook bears no weight on what should or should not be on Wikipedia. There is no guideline on wikipedia that says accident should be avoided, if there is one, cite it. I did not suggest that Template:infobox aircraft occurrence should removed all mentions of crash, what I meant to say is that for the infobox, it states that accident, incident, hijacking or occurrence should be used. A few examples of sources that use accident and/without crash include:
The Aviation Herald uses both accident and crash.
Flight Global only uses accident with crash used as a verb in the title (crashes).
[1]: Meteorological reports for the period surrounding the accident indicate areas of turbulence, thunderstorms, icing in the vicinity.
"[...] and the first fatal aviation crash involving Voepass Linhas Aéreas since its establishment in 1995." The two sources cited state: "is the first accident involving regular Brazilian commercial aviation since 2007."; "Voepass accident is the biggest in commercial aviation since 2007"
BBC – "The four crew members on board at the time of the accident were all duly licensed and had valid qualifications, it added."
Most reliable sources use both the term accident and crash, some with or without the other. If accident is a loaded word, then do not use it but do not remove the term when reliable sources also use accident. Simply searching doesn't mean anything, if you search for the term accident in the sources, in most articles, you will find them using the term accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP stylebook informs journalism, so it actually does have some weight as far as this discussion. You're also cherry-picking trade publications that are more likely to use aviation jargon and 'accident' even though it's an inferior word for what happened. Major outlets largely lead with crash. Either way, accident implies nobody is at fault and there was no underlying cause. Such a determination is months away at best. We should not cling to an inferior word just because there are some outlets using it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should add a new topic at talk page of template:infobox aircraft occurrence. Awdqmb (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to add a new topic at an infobox talk page because infobox talk pages don't define correct terminology, reliable sources and common sense do, and common sense explains to us that accident is the wrong word to use for airplane crashes. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to point out that, terminology in specific professional sectors has nothing to do with common sense. Most people and news media use IATA flight number to refer an accident, so should we also use same in page title? If you think "accident & incident" is a improper name to refer an occurrence event, should we change it into "aviation crashes"? Awdqmb (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have checked, all major aviation organizations, including IATA and ICAO, and country regulators like FAA, use word "accident" even "fatal accident" to refer severe aviation occurrence events. So are you suggesting your so-called "reliable source" and "common sense" are better than these solid, professional organizations and regulators do? If you don't believe you can directly visit their websites. Awdqmb (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a website for journalism so it carries no weight. I just gave a few examples since there are a lot of sources which use accident. ICAO's definitions of accidents is as follows [2]:
"Annex 13 defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing." Furthermore, "Annex 13 also states that the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident is to prevent accidents and incidents and that the investigation is not to apportion blame or liability"
"You're also cherry-picking trade publications that are more likely to use aviation jargon and 'accident' even though it's an inferior word for what happened."
It's disingenuous to discard these types of sources (which are reliable mind you) solely because they focus on aviation related news whilst using aviation terms.
Here are some more sources which use accident: The Associated Press CNN ABC News Voice of America Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find instances of both. In aggregate, crash is probably used more, but I don't think we should waste time tallying them. In the AP article you link, it's important to note they're using accident once in quotations and the other times in the context of official statements where they use that word. It's still an inferior word to crash for the reasons I shared earlier. We should avoid using it, not only because most RS are using crash, but because it implies there is no fault to be assigned in this incident. We don't know if this was purely an accident yet. If there was an icing issue, a training issue, etc, those come from human error and mismanagement. "Accident" is simply not good writing and not what most RS are using. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inferior in your opinion. In this discussion and across your edits, you seem to be the only one advocating for such a change even when multiple editors have said that the use of accident is fine. As stated above, in the context of aviation accidents, accident does not necessarily imply that there is no fault and/or blame. Per Annex 13, accidents are defined as "occurrences associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing." Nowhere in Annex 13 does it state that blame is absolved. Accident investigations are not meant to be trials where those involved in the accident are prosecuted and charged, they are meant to prevent similar events from occurring again, if not, that would defeat the entire purpose of investigating and preventing accidents which is stated in Annex 13. Most investigative agencies are against the use of their findings in courts which is stated, in their reports, also being against the prosecution and/or detainment of pilots and/or of those involved. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think such definition of aviation occurrence is wrong, you should change the template:infobox aircraft occurrence first. Wikipedia has its own standard to difine the summary of aviation accidents and incidents, I think we should follow this, unless someone request to change it and most wikipedians agree with new standard. Awdqmb (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have this discussion in November? - ZLEA T\C 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We did! It's not a closed discussion and most RS agree on using 'crash' not accident. We should avoid the use of 'accident', for the reasons I've explained. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word 'accident' for a plane crash is bad English point blank. We know a plane crashed. We do not know if it was an accident. Agree or disagree, RS broadly call it a crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word 'accident' for a plane crash is bad English point blank. Tell that to Voepass, the company's CEO, ATR, and the Brazilian and American governments. All of them were quoted by CNN using the term "accident". - ZLEA T\C 02:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't follow blindly Brazilian airline CEOs or plane manufacturers, we follow RS, and broadly, they use crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your recent edit history and found an alarming pattern of you removing the word "accident" from a large variety of articles (examples from just the last few weeks include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]). I don't know what led you to hold the word "accident" in such low regard, and I'm going to assume that your actions were done in good faith. However, as far as I am aware based on this and previous discussions I've seen, everyone else has told you that you are wrong. Maybe you should stop and consider the fact that you might indeed be wrong. - ZLEA T\C 03:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You insist on ignoring the reasons I've outlined for why we should use crash and avoid accident. That's ok, and I understand that you disagree. But most reliable sources for this entry on wikpiedia use crash, and simply put, we follow reliable sources. Can you explain how you know this crash was accidental? I'd hazard that you cannot. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no one, not even any government organizations, have presented any evidence, let alone baseless claims, of foul play being involved. When reliable sources quote governments, airlines and their CEOs, and aircraft manufacturers using the term "accident" with absolutely no opposition, Occam's razor says that they believe that the events in question were accidents. - ZLEA T\C 03:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't follow Occam, we follow reliable sources, and most of them are going with crash instead of accident for good reason. It's the better, more accurate word to describe what happened without getting into tricky territory. We should avoid the use of the word accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also follow WP:COMMONSENSE. If multiple reliable sources quote governments using the term "accident" with no opposition, common sense says it was an accident. There is no "tricky territory" here, almost everyone agrees that it was an accident, even if the sources that quote them follow a stylebook that advises them to not call it one directly. As Aviationwikiflight said, the Wikipedia is not bound by the AP Stylebook, even if the sources we use are. - ZLEA T\C 03:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about the terminology, not the course of events. Please try to understand that. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also we are obligated by some degree by reliable sources and most of them call it a crash, not accident, except in reference to official statements or quotes by which they are bound to refer verbatim Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this source has 16 instances of the word crash, including the headline, and only four instances of accident, most of them in direct quotes which they are obligated to reproduce verbatim. Just because some person uses the wrong word doesn't mean RS prefer it and doesn't mean we should insist on it either. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I'll concede for now based on this technicality. However, we will inevitably revisit this once RS which are not bound by the AP Stylebook start covering this accident. - ZLEA T\C 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I will retract my premature concession. You stated that Just because some person uses the wrong word doesn't mean RS prefer it and doesn't mean we should insist on it either. The problem is that no one is questioning the term "accident", therefore your claims that it is wrong are entirely baseless. Following a style book that explicitly discourages the use of "accident" is not the same as refuting or challenging the term. The very fact that AP themselves directly called this an accident in the link you provided, especially since it is their own style book that discourages its use, is grounds to use the term in the article. You also seem to be using a WP:COMMONNAME-type argument that we should be using the wording that is numerically more common in reliable sources. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that supports such an argument for article text. As long as both terms are supported by reliable sources, we can and should use both. - ZLEA T\C 15:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other points aside, if there's a choice between the two, we should use the word RS are using most. That is crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources currently are going with, in their latest stories:
USA Today: Crash (17) Accident (2)
AP: Crash (18) Accident (1)
CNN: Crash (7) Accident (0)
FOX : Crash (15) Accident (1)
Reuters: Crash (14) Accident (3)
NYTimes : Crash (29) Accident (0)
US News and World Report Crash (15) Accident (3)
So Reliable Sources appear to overwhelmingly prefer crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other points aside, if there's a choice between the two, we should use the word RS are using most.
Because...? Reliable sources use both accident and crash, there is no reason to discard accident solely because it is less frequently used than crash. This event was both a crash and an accident. There exists no guidelines stating that we should follow what sources say word-for-word, and certainly not one that bars editors from using a less frequently cited word. Judging from this discussion and previous ones, it's clear that there exists no consensus on discarding the term accident despite its "limited use". I agree that accident is definitely less frequently used in reliable sources, but that in itself is not sufficient enough of an argument to argue in favour of the use of crash over accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we follow RS and most RS prefer crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're missing the point. We don't need to choose between the two. Reliable news sources are using both terms despite following a guidebook that discourages the use of "accident". Everyone not bound by the AP Stylebook is using "accident" a lot more liberally. This was both a crash and an accident, so let's stop pretending that these are mutually exclusive terms. - ZLEA T\C 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let's resolve the dispute by following nearly every single headline and word used in the body of RS which is crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crash and accident do not mean the same thing. Given what RS are saying we should prefer crash, and for the reasons I've outlined before. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP:HEADLINES. Second, I'm not saying "crash" and "accident" mean the same thing. I said that this is BOTH a crash AND an accident. Your continued insistence on avoiding the word "accident" seemingly by any means necessary is becoming highly disruptive. You have been told by numerous other editors that you are wrong, yet you continue to exhibit WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. - ZLEA T\C 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your disagreement or misunderstanding is not a case to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Other editors have disagreed, and others have agreed. That's the point of us meeting here to have this discussion. Reliable sources are mostly going with crash. And you literally do not know if this was an accident or not. For all we know, this could have been a bombing. We literally do not know yet. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all we know, this could have been a bombing. Are you serious? We have numerous reliable sources as well as the airline and CEO, the manufacturer, and several governments confirming that it was an accident, as well as multiple videos of an intact ATR in a flat spin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aircraft bombings do not typically result in an intact airframe entering a flat spin. It's comments like these that make people question whether you are even here to build an encyclopedia. - ZLEA T\C 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accident and crash do not mean the same thing, and for the 14th time, most RS prefer crash. You insist on using a loaded word that most RS seem to be avoiding. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far in this discussion, you have been the only one to express your viewpoint. Icing for example, has been discussed by sources and experts as a possible contributing factor/cause. A bombing however, is supported by absolutely zero sources at all. However, the fact that both accident and crash are used in reliable sources means that both terms are perfectly acceptable to use. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All true, and also true that RS prefer crash over accident. So why cling to a word that is much less commonly used by RS? If some kind of malfeasance or negligence led to an icing condition, then there will certainly be litigation to hold responsible the parties accountable. We simply do not know yet and most RS use crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "crash" and "accident" are not mutually exclusive. As I've stated numerous times already, this was both a crashed an accident. It doesn't matter that "crash" is used numerically more often than "accident", only that the sources are using those two terms at all. Therefore, we can and should use both words to describe the event. - ZLEA T\C 21:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does matter what words reliable sources choose use to describe events like this, and there's a reason most avoid 'accident'. I am happy to agree to disagree, but please avoid casting aspersions in the future when having a civil discussion about the words we use to describe incidents which led to a significant loss of life such as this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No aspirations were cast, everything I have said is based on observations of your behavior, and I stand by it. It's clear that no good will come from continuing this discussion here. - ZLEA T\C 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could say the same about your ignoring reliable sources in your own insistence on using a word that is plainly less accurate. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are suggesting that airline CEO and aircraft manufacture is not reliable than your so-called "reliable sources", which are all news medias? Awdqmb (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perennial sources favor crash over accident. We go with them over one-off statements from airline CEOs. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event was an accident, caused by currently unknown causes (but most likely not a mid-air collision/crash), which ended with the crash. The article is about the entire event. This entire discussion thread is one troll throwing a tantrum because he has a personal issue with the word accident. Fbergo (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also know better than to use pronouns of fellow editors who have not disclosed such Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy flagging that these are not RS as you previously argued Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reply you linked is an unexplained assertion of unreliability in which the user simply asked others to read WP:RS. On what grounds are these assertions being made? Is it because they are WP:PRIMARY (which alone does not make a source unreliable)? Do they have a history of publishing inaccuracies? Such assertions, if true, would have a much greater impact on Wikipedia than this one article, so any evidence of unreliability should be brought to WP:RSN. Until then, any claims of unreliability of aviation authorities that are not supported by evidence will have little to no impact here. - ZLEA T\C 06:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion (or this portion of it) seems to be devolving into a personal dispute between (mostly) two editors about their respective attitudes toward editing and each other. As such, the editors are encouraged to move (civil) discussion of those topics to one or the other of their Talk pages, rather than continuing here, where the focus must be on improving this article. (I nearly hatted some of this, and may yet do so if I can decide where to start.) General Ization Talk 21:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least I don't know what's going on. I have pointed out that terminology in professional sector have nothing to do with common sense, and major org (IATA and ICAO) and regulator like FAA use "accident" to refer such. But he still insist his "so-called RS and common sense", which are mostly less-professional media. So at least I don't get it. I mean, we are a encyclopaedia, not a information website for all commons. Awdqmb (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just don't understand how his "reliable sources" are more reliable than the information from the airlines's CEO and from ATR. It just doesn't make sense. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained at WP:RS. The CEO and ATR are not reliable sources as the term is used here on Wikipedia. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but that still doesn't explain why we shouldn't use the word "accident". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least IATA, ICAO and FAA are reliable source right? But he thinks that these authorities are less reliable than those medias. 185.220.238.151 (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they should be more reliable but who knows? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. But if you're not going to bother reading the policy I linked above, there is nothing more I can do for you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine. Maybe you are right. But unable to use ATR and the CEO's info still doesn't mean that we shouldn't use the word "accident". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you also suggesting that, their official aviation safety report is unreliable, but news report from media is reliable? I have checked all their recent aviation reports, and they all use "accident" and "fatal accident" to refer occuerrences. Awdqmb (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't agree, can we at least stop the disruption?

[edit]

If we can't agree on whether to use "crash" or "accident", can we at least come to a consensus that it's disruptive to keep changing it, and it should not be changed again without first arriving at a consensus on the talk page? GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 08:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 → Voepass Flight 2283 – I am reopening the move discussion. Many arguments were based on consistency with the airline name, but in the meantime the airline page was moved to just "Voepass". Since those arguments have become invalid, the page should be moved. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, WikiProject Brazil/Transportation in Brazil task force, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Aviation, and WikiProject Disaster management have been notified of this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous airline page move action should be reverted and reboot the move request discussion again, because the previous result is infact No Consensus, since there were only 2 Supports and 2 Opposes. Also, there is no description change after move. Awdqmb (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not by how many votes were cast by either side. Second of all, you seem to be implying that the closing user is not competent enough to close the discussion. I wouldn't be so sure considering they look to be a very experienced contributor. Lastly, the discussion ran for two entire weeks. The closing user determined that arguments in favour of a move were stronger. Regarding the description, I think a simple note should be placed saying that Voepass is more commonly used. I don't think anything else should be changed. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should change the page now at least. It has been five days since, and I haven't seen any change yet. At least we should add description like "commonly referred as 'Voepass'" and add reliable source for it.
For "consensus is based on the strength of arguments", I totally disagree. Because us Wikipedia is euqal for all users, we simply shouldn't perform like "The new user's opinion should just be irrelevant". Awdqmb (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that a new user's opinion, or anybody's is inferior? All I said is that consensus is based on the weight of the arguments. See WP:RMCIDC for more information.
In this case, regarding the description, I prefer discussing how to do it instead of doing because this is outside of where I usually edit. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm confused and mixed up with some of the comments. I apology for my oversight.
But to be honest, if this managed to move, I'm afraid to raise a new overall discussion, about the naming policies of all similar airlines, especially those Latin American ones, which mostly use Spanish and Portuguese and no official English name. We can't do such discussion everytime. Awdqmb (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on evidence. And anyways, we can do a discussion everytime, I don't see why not if the articles are titled incorrectly. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we shouldn't do it for every similar cases. After all, an overall policy with consensus can save everyone's time, while discuss it everytime may result in WP:NOTBURO. And, most of the airlines' naming are following some patterns, which we can rollout consensus for it. Awdqmb (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should add: I don't mean that user have no right to close the discussion, but we should just let it open until more people join in and get a final result. Because during the discussion, we only have four or five user discuss about it. Unlike previous discussion on this page. Awdqmb (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If you are asking to change this to Voepass Flight 2283, then you might as well change TAM Transportes Aéreos Regionais Flight 402 and Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. Fadedreality556 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe later, I'll focus on this one for now. Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion there: This two should not be changed, because they are the official name of the airlines. It's unlike "Linhas Aéreas" and "Líneas Aéreas", which both mean "Airlines" in Portuguese and Spanish. But yes, I think a independent overall naming policy discussion of those airlines should be hold then. Awdqmb (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preliminary report

[edit]

The preliminary report has been released by CENIPA. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the probable cause do point to icing. Awdqmb (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voepass_Flight_2283&oldid=1247333934"